1. The cells to grow this must come from living animals. The article
says that the developer "has taken cells from the necks of cows and
grown very tiny quantities in petri dishes, repeating the procedure
'thousands of times' to generate enough for a hamburger patty."

2. Assuming that this could ever become commercially viable, and
assuming that any significant number of meat eaters will actually choose
to consume this--two very big assumptions--there will still be animals
needed to produce dairy, eggs, and other animal foods and clothing;

3. We have PETA saying: "In vitro meat provides a way for people to be
able to eat ethically, while still kind of getting that meat fix."
ethical? "meat fix"?

4. We have PETA, which apparently cannot
afford to find homes for 95% of the animals it takes in at its facility,
offering $1 million to the developer of in vitro chicken.

How about those dogs and cats who are being killed today?

Whenever I think that the animal movement cannot become more absurd, I am shown to be wrong. Citat: https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach---Shawn Fosnight:
Which of my points do you disagree with? And do you think that there is
a snowball's chance in hell that this will be commercially viable for
cat food at any point in the near future? And do you see that they have
to get the cells from animals? How does that make it vegan? What will
happen to those donor animals? Will they be people's "pets"?

I’ve seen an astonishing number of comments by vegans supporting
‘Schmeat’, speculating that ‘billions of lives will be saved’ by this
technology which ‘harmlessly and painlessly’ extracts stem cells from
animals. Firstly, at the moment they can only ‘grow’ something that
looks like a hamburger (or a cow pat depending on your point of view) so
saving billions of animals will only be a possibility when T-bone
steaks, pork chops and chicken legs can also be grown. I won’t be
holding my breath. Secondly, the fact that animals will still be
exploited seems to have gone out of the window because ‘less harm is
good’, accompanied by the usual comments that ‘the world won’t become
vegan overnight’ and ‘we have to start somewhere’.

What is the
point of adopting the moral philosophy of veganism if you aren’t going
to advocate it and instead give approval to activities which involve
animal exploitation? Whatever is wrong with being unequivocal in
opposing the consumption of animal products, even in a bastardised form
such as ‘Schmeat’? I make absolutely no apologies for the fact that I
won’t support anything which involves the exploitation of one single
animal.

About me

"“Thanksgiving dinner's sad and thankless. Christmas dinner's dark and blue. When you stop and try to see it From the turkey's point of view.
Sunday dinner isn't sunny. Easter feasts are just bad luck. When you see it from the viewpoint of a chicken or a duck.
Oh how I once loved tuna salad Pork and lobsters, lamb chops too Till I stopped and looked at dinner From the dinner's point of view.”
Shel Silverstein
"Animals do not 'give' their life to us, as the sugar-coated lie would have it . . . They struggle and fight to the last breath, just as we would do if we were in their place." [John Robbins]